 |
|
HUNDREDS OF PROTESTERS gathered outside the United States embassy in London ...
(Photo: thejournal.ie)
|
A Coptic American, extreme right-winger and
Islam- hater made an anti-Islam film and put it on the internet. Its reaction
was very violent in the Muslim world beginning with Libya wherein an American
ambassador Christopher Steve along with four other consulate staff was killed
in violent demonstration. It was followed by violent demonstrations in Egypt,
Yemen, and other places. Saudi Arabia which normally remains officially silent
also had to strongly protest.
Of course some countries like Indonesia,
Malaysia and others remained comparatively peaceful though signs of unrest are
there in these countries too. In other words the countries covered by Arab
Spring were mostly affected. And on this occasion a private agency in Iran once
again renewed the prize offer (with increased amount of 3.3 million dollar) on
Rushdie’s head.
Rushdie of course reacted
characteristically by saying that blasphemy should be one’s right. It is
difficult to say what shape this renewed offer on Rushdie’s head will take. It
may remain only a formal announcement. It seems difficult that it would become
a raging controversy as it did when Ayatollah Khomeini had declared price on
Rushdie’s head. Politically it was very different context.
Ayatollah Khomeini then was a great hero
for the Muslim youth as he had declared America a great Satan and America all
over the Muslim world then was seen as an evil incarnate who had tried to stop
an Islamic revolution and Rushdie was seen as a western agent who had, in the
name of human rights, insulted the Prophet of Islam thus trying to weaken
Islamic revolution. One cannot expect that kind of reaction from the Muslim
youth anymore.
But as for the anti-Islamic film there is a
different political context (i.e. the Arab Spring), no less significant than
Islamic revolution of Iran. The only difference is that Iranian revolution was
actively opposed by America whereas Arab Spring was seen as favourable by
American rulers under the pretext of bringing in democracy to the Arab world.
In Libya America and NATO forces had played
an active role in overthrowing Gaddafi who had played an anti-American role
throughout his life except perhaps during the last phase when he had tried to
reconcile with Western powers. In Syria too America, like Libya, is interested
in what it chooses to call ‘regime change.’ Needless to say both in Libya and
Syria America had not played so innocent a role as it would like the world to
believe.
Today both in Libya and Syria Al-Qaeda has
become hyper-active but even at the cost of making al-Qaeda quite active,
America’s priority is to destroy Gaddafi and Bashar al-Assad, the old enemies
of America and the only obstacles in total domination of Middle East by
America. Both of them have been anti-Israel too and with their elimination,
America will be free to promote its interest in the area.
For al-Qaeda too it suits well as both
Bashar al-Assad and Gaddafi have been enemies being revolutionaries and seen as
anti-Islamic forces by them (i.e. al-Qaeda) Thus both the regimes, ironically,
are seen as enemies both by America and al-Qaeda. Thus the violent
demonstrations against the film are result of number of factors. What is to be
understood is that these demonstrations are less Islamic and more for down to
earth factors – political, economic and sociological.
The media, especially western media, is
portraying these demonstrations as purely a violent religious act, act of
fanaticism particularly because it is Islamic. It is not so simple as the media
is portraying it. First of all we must reckon with the oil factor. America’s
sole interest in this region is neither Islam, nor democracy, nor dictatorship,
for that matter. It is oil, pure and simple.
There is as yet no alternative to oil and
most of the oil resources of the world are in this region. America wants to
maintain its grip on this region at any cost. The first danger it smelt in the
region was the Islamic revolution of Iran. U.S. was exceptionally hostile to
Iranian revolution. Not because it was Islamic revolution; it was because Iran
was emerging as challenge to American leadership in the region. It was equally
hostile to Fatimi’s democratic revolution in early fifties of the last century
and to undo that revolution it had used Ayatollah’s against the Fatimi’s
secular democratic revolution.
After the then Iranian revolution of 1950s
number of left-oriented regimes emerged in Middle East i.e. Iraqi and Syrian
(Baath Party-led revolution) and Libyan Revolution in 1969, apart from Jamal
Abd al-Nassir’s Young Officers’ coup in Egypt in mid-fifties. Nasser’s
revolution was no less dangerous than that of Iranian revolution in 1979. It
nationalized Suez Canal and France, Britain and Israel invaded Egypt morally
supported by USA. It was Soviet Union which threatened these powers and made
them retreat.
The Arab Spring, was also seen similarly an
opportunity by America to intervene and do away with ‘enemies’ like Gaddafi and
Bashar al-Assad. But like before, it is not as simple as America thinks. The
demonstrations are aimed politically against American interests in the region.
Of course it is utterly foolish to make such film which has been described as
‘idiotic’ or utterly simplistic.
It is true the American regime, much less
the people, had anything to do with making of the film and so one wonders why kill
its ambassador and consular staff or why demonstrate against America. These
demonstrations do not mean that people put responsibility of the film on
America. It clearly means that they have utterly hostile feelings towards
American domination and repeated interference in the region. They want America
to get out of the region.
Unfortunately America does not want to
learn lessons. After Libya it rushed to the aid of rebel not for its love of
democracy in Syria but for its hatred of the enemy i.e. Bashar al-Assad.
America is fully aware of the fact that al-Qaeda is trying to capture the rebel
forces. But it thinks Bashar al-Assad is much greater enemy and it can take
care of al-Qaeda later. Let not America think that the rebels in Syria would
feel grateful to America after success of rebellion. These rebels too carry
anti-American feelings hidden in their hearts and when time comes they will
manifest it as it happened in Libya.
Many moderate Muslim intellectuals are
saying that moderates should speak out against violent demonstrations. I fully
agree with this viewpoint. We must oppose violence anywhere and in whatever
form. Moreover it is not people of America who are to be blamed for events like
anti-Islamic film. It is after all small number of right wingers who are
compulsive haters of Islam.
Also, people of America like any other
people of the world, are manipulated by the powerful media to think that
American foreign policy is right in the Middle Eastern region. For them the
principles, and not the interests, play role in framing these policies. Also,
hatred is not the right answer for hatred. As a Muslim and as a Gandhian I
think love and understanding is the right answer.
To prevent such violent demonstrations the
Imams should play creative role in Friday sermons. They should explain to
Muslims what are Islamic values and why they should desist from such
demonstrations. Also, as a value we oppose US policies, not America or American
people. American principles are as great as any other principles. Among those
principles are freedom of expression and freedom to follow ones dictates of
conscience. There can be no compromise of that.
But this is possible only when our Imams
are highly educated and capable of analyzing facts as they are. The kinds of
Imams we have are illiterate in matters other than Islamic Shari’ah and Islamic
theology. Imams play very significant role in lives of Muslims, especially in
Asian and African countries. Muslim intellectuals and moderate Muslims should
see to it that Imams should not only be Islamically educated but also in other
matters as they influence Muslim thinking on socio-political matters through
their sermons on Friday.
The Muslim media also has to play highly
responsible role in such matters. We see that Muslim media also, like Imams of
the mosques, play to the gallery. Today we are living in the age of democracy
and in democracy media plays very important role. We know western media too
does not play responsible role. On one hand it displays deeply rooted prejudices
and on the other, it guards the interests of multi-national corporations.
But if we believe in Islamic values of
justice and peace we have to suppress our anger and display more patience
failing which “Islam stands for peace” will become mere rhetoric and such
display of violence on all such occasions does show it is mere rhetoric. As
good Muslims we should go beyond mere rhetoric and show in action that we stand
for justice and peace.
--
Asghar Ali Engineer is a Mumbai-based
writer.
Mecca Time
Bergen Time
Auckland
